The bureaucracy gospel
Sitting in New York’s Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza this week, I found myself in conversation with a Rwandan woman who used to work for the United Nations, though she is now an artist. She told me that she left the UN because she became sick of the bureaucracy. She asked me, “What is the problem with bureaucracy?” I paused to think, then listed four ills: It is impersonal, unresponsive, self-serving, and inefficient. That seemed to describe my artsy, former UN-worker friend’s experience quite accurately.
These four ills have a lot to do with public opposition to Big Government. (I capitalize those words because Big Government is genetically related to Big Brother.) Nationwide, federal solutions to social and economic problems (Big Government) always create and perpetuate bureaucracy and its ills. Think of the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Social Security Administration. These agencies have combined budgets of approximately $238 billion and employ 132,000 people. HHS administers over $700 billion, a quarter of all federal outlays, including Medicare and Medicaid payments. It is estimated that Social Security will pay out $734 billion in benefits this year.
The current federal debt crisis is driven largely by the demography of entitlements that bureaucracies like these administer. In 1940, five years after Congress established the Social Security Administration, the ratio of workers paying into the system to beneficiaries was about 159-to-1. Because of declining birth rates and longer life expectancies, the ratio is now about 3-to-1. With the baby boom generation, that post-war bulge in the population, now entering retirement, Social Security alone (to say nothing of Medicare and Medicaid) will quickly become a program for national financial suicide. But for bureaucratic and political reasons, the program lumbers on, unresponsive to changing social conditions.
In contrast to Big Government bureaucracies, consider the fate of Borders bookstores. In a column last week, Rich Lowry remarked on the efficiency of the market in serving the consumer (you and your neighbors) and weeding out inefficient and irrelevant businesses: “The store fell victim to the unyielding injunction of a truly creative economy: ‘Adapt, or die.’ It failed to keep up with evolving technology and shifting consumer preferences, and so has been forced to make way for more adept competitors.” But government bureaucracies hang around, doing what they’ve always done, long after they have stopped serving the public good, if they ever did. Notes Lowry, “If Borders were a government agency, its budget would have been fattened up during the past few years, and it’d survive in perpetuity, whatever its merits.”
There will be no solution to our debt crisis until we solve the entitlement crisis. But underlying that crisis is a political conflict over Big Government and bureaucracy. One party views these as the solution to just about every human problem. The other party prefers decentralized government and grassroots solutions, though they don’t always have the courage or persuasive ability to follow through on those convictions.
As Europe buckles under the weight of debt-financed social programs, America still has time to address its social dependence on government entities that are by their very nature impersonal, unresponsive, self-serving, and inefficient. But time is quickly running out.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top42 Comments to “The bureaucracy gospel”
Time is quickly running out and we have no one in govt. who plans to be honest about the problem.
Report comment to moderator
World English Dictionary
bureaucracy (bj???r?kr?s?)
1. a system of administration based upon organization into bureaus, division of labour, a hierarchy of authority, etc: designed to dispose of a large body of work in a routine manner
2. government by such a system
3. government or other officials collectively
4. any administration in which action is impeded by unnecessary official procedures and red tape
[emphasis mine]
Report comment to moderator
by their very nature impersonal, unresponsive, self-serving, and inefficient.
A good description of corporate bureacracy also.
Gov’t agnecies survive because for the most part they are needed. The Department of Defence is probably one of the worsrt offenders in terms of bureacratic cost but I doub’t anyhone would want the military to declare bankruptcy.
From Innes’ column I get the impression that its agreeable to him if gov’t agencies would die if they don’t adapt. Now I can always order a book from Amazon but I can’t always find a new army as quickly.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Our government is charged with general defense by it’s Constitution.
You can’t cut the entire military. Sorry.
“A good description of corporate bureacracy also.”
Sure, but they only get my money if I chose to let them.
Report comment to moderator
The best (and most hilarious) portrayal of the morass of bureaucracy in government would be the the BBC series Yes Minister and its sequel, Yes Prime Minister. The writers claimed to have got their material from goverment officials; and they skillfully portrayed the ridiculous manuvering between politicians concerned about public relations, and bureaucrats worried about their pensions.
Report comment to moderator
4. O f course you can’t cut the military but Innes argues the problem with gov’t bureacracy is we can’t let them go bankrupt so I ask does Innes want the military to go bankrupt? obviously not and hence the problem with his argument
5. nothing is more amusing than watching corporate and public bureacrcies in action — on one hand they do thier job and on an other level they are acting to further their own needs. Watching some teachers angling for a plum assignment or room assignment provides more comic relief than a sitcom, especially when its transparent and they fail.
Report comment to moderator
“O f course you can’t cut the military but Innes argues the problem with gov’t bureacracy is we can’t let them go bankrupt so I ask does Innes want the military to go bankrupt? obviously not and hence the problem with his argument”
Where is he ever arguing anything about the government going bankrupt?
He’s arguing that in the market, failure to adapt, leads a company to bankruptcy.
Failure to get rid of programs that don’t work, are past their time, or are not amended lead to bankruptcy as well in the government. Except unlike the market, the government just continues to plug along with failing programs increasing their spending and debt.
I don’t see him arguing for bankruptcy, or the lack there of. Just bothering to note where we are headed, if we do not make changes in these bloated programs.
Report comment to moderator
In 1940, five years after Congress established the Social Security Administration, the ratio of workers paying into the system to beneficiaries was about 159-to-1. Because of declining birth rates and longer life expectancies, the ratio is now about 3-to-1.
This highlights an excellent point. The problem is that some sort of “social security” program exists; the problem is that the one we passed was designed too rigidly and is incapable of adapting to demographic changes and the rate of increase in the cost of health care.
Programs such as these need to be designed from their inception with controls to automatically adjust payments and eligibility based on demographic and market stimuli. These changes should take place without requiring legislative action.
Just as a crude example, the original plan for SS could have stipulated that the program would only cover the oldest 10% of the population. Once you’re covered you stay covered (even if you fall out of the oldest 10% due to demographic changes) but the number of folks considered “newly eligible” in a given year would be capped such that the total number of covered individuals remained under the 10% threshold. In effect, this would result in the qualifying age automatically adjusting upwards.
Report comment to moderator
How would you fall out of the oldest 10% except by dying?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn
My mistake I should have stated Innes views the private sector has greater measurements of accountability. However, the mechanisms of accountability cannot necessarily be applied to the public sector as they fulfill a different function.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with people like HRW is that they view business and government as two social institutions that are intrinsically the same. They do not see the huge ESSENTIAL difference between them–that one is private and one is public. The ramifications of that essential difference are numerous and significant.
The most important one is that we all have a stake in how the government operates and we should have a say in it, but it is up to us which corporations we deal with and to what extent we do so. If a corporation has an expensive, inefficient bureaucracy, that is their business and their problem. If the government does, that is everyone’s business and everyone’s problem.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, it could happen, mathematically speaking. Let’s say you turn 65 and that happens to be the youngest age of the oldest 10% of the population. Now lets say that over the next five years, fewer of the 65+ people are dying than babies are being born. Maybe now the oldest 10% of the population starts at age 71, but you are 70.
Report comment to moderator
Typo. That should read: The problem isn’t that some sort of ’social security’ exists…
Same point with Medicare. It apparently never occurred to anyone back in the day, “Hey, what if we have a glut of old people and health care becomes absurdly expensive?” Because they sure didn’t build the system to take that into account.
Report comment to moderator
“Just as a crude example, the original plan for SS could have stipulated that the program would only cover the oldest 10% of the population.”
Buddy, I don’t know if anyone else mentioned this yet, but when it was originated, the age to begin receiving payments, was OVER the average age of life expectancy. Now a days, life expectancy is 7-10 years over the age at which you can begin receiving payments.
This is why your ratio has gone from 156 down to 3 to 1.
The problem with a 10% idea, is that you’d end up at 10 to 1 eventually right? Better than 3 to 1 though at least.
Report comment to moderator
“However, the mechanisms of accountability cannot necessarily be applied to the public sector as they fulfill a different function.”
Sure they can. Your citizens, are just share holders. We have the power to vote the morons out.
The accountability should be much higher though as well for the government sector. Representatives should be held to a very high standard. Like judges, they should not be swayed by lobbyists, corporate elites, or biased to gain their own investments.
The country follows their lead, and if they don’t exhibit fiscal responsibility and integrity, the rest of America won’t feel the need to either.
Where as a corporation pays the price for that failure, when the government does it, the whole nation could crumble.
Report comment to moderator
It sounds like you two disagree.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting post. Innes has a point that the open-ending spending power of government makes it slow to adapt. It can just subsidize failing programs, whereas a business has to adapt them or fail.
But HRW’s objection is well worth noting. Sometimes the inefficient programs are still necessary programs, and so they are worth spending money on. He gives the example of the Defense department, which consumes an inordinate amount of our budget. That is a particularly good example because the military is one of the most bureaucratic and inefficient functions of government, from the individual (soldiers joke all the time about the everyday bureaucracies of military life — “forms in triplicate” and “no such thing as army intelligence” sort of jokes) to the institutional (no-bid contracts and hiring private security companies whose operatives receive many times the salary of a soldier and $55 million per day to air condition tents in Afghanistan).
(I’d like to address Thorn’s objection to this in a follow-up post.)
The Postal Service would be another good example. It cannot be financially viable on its own, precisely because it insists on delivering letters from Seattle to rural Kentucky for 49 cents. Is that a profitable venture in itself? No. But is it a necessary service that has facilitated much commerce and communication across the U.S.? Yes.
Innes seems to imply that unprofitable functions of government ought to be allowed to just “go out of business.” But some unprofitable functions are still necessary functions. Rather, the people need to hold their elected officials responsible for reforming necessary or useful functions of government so that they are adaptive and a wise use of public money.
Report comment to moderator
The weakness in your argument, Thorn, lies in the incredible leap from your first sentence to your second. The fact that the federal government is charged with providing for the common defense in no way means that any organization created or spending undertaken to that end is justifiable.
If that were the case, than I could just as easily argue that since the federal government is charged with promoting the general welfare, we need a Department of Back Massages and every citizen is entitled to a free massage and a mai tai once a week.
The preamble lays out the general principles that the government ought to defend. Specific programs, institutions, or dollars need to be judged on their own merits.
But maybe you don’t believe (as some do) that we should never cut a single dollar from the defense budget. Even so, I’m arguing that drastic cuts to the military budget — which are necessary for our financial solvency — are still in keeping with the Constitution’s charge to “provide for the common defense”.
A couple years ago, our military spending was greater than all the other countries of the world combined; in 2011 I believe we spent 48% of the world’s defense dollars. By spending so much, we have moved beyond “the common defense” and have become international do-gooders in our best moments and military adventurists in our worst.
For that matter, if you believe that significant defense cuts violate the charge to “provide for the common defense,” then you’d have to likewise accept that significant social program cuts violate the preamble’s very next charge to “promote the general welfare,” wouldn’t you?
Finally, the Tea Party love of military spending is inconsistent with their professed love for the Founder’s vision and original intent, because the Founders largely believed that a standing army was a perilous threat to the liberties they were fighting to secure.
Here’s James Madison:
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts:
Thomas Jefferson:
an anonymous anti-Federalist writing under the pseudonym “Centinel”:
Madison again:
Report comment to moderator
“It sounds like you two disagree.”
My impression from Kyle’s post is that he was referencing the same thing I did earlier. The government effects everyone, where as a corporation, I can chose not to give to, and thus only effects those who invest.
He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe we were making two different points in what you referenced, on two different topics.
The accountability mechanics do not change just because the public sector carries more weight. It makes that accountability all the more important.
Report comment to moderator
Innes appears to address the entitlement programs of civil govt, not the whole of civil govt; just those programs that our Progressives have added over the past 80 years that go above and beyond Constitutional enumerations. It is these entitlement programs that have created a Big Government from a limited federal government.
Report comment to moderator
“The fact that the federal government is charged with providing for the common defense in no way means that any organization created or spending undertaken to that end is justifiable.”
It is for the common defense. Is going to Afghanistan, common defense? There’s a good argument that it’s not.
If Canada decided to attack us, should we shift funds to bolster our defense in such a time? Sure.
“If that were the case, than I could just as easily argue that since the federal government is charged with promoting the general welfare, we need a Department of Back Massages and every citizen is entitled to a free massage and a mai tai once a week.”
What is promoting the general welfare? Is that ensuring people have the freedom to pursue their general welfare, legally? Or does it mean like you assert, government hand outs?
“Specific programs, institutions, or dollars need to be judged on their own merits.”
I believe that is an agreeable point. One in which most of us here make every day.
” But maybe you don’t believe (as some do) that we should never cut a single dollar from the defense budget.”
Don’t assume. Read my posts. I have no problem putting useless/pointless defense programs on the table as well. I have no trouble bringing the kids home from war.
“By spending so much, we have moved beyond “the common defense” and have become international do-gooders in our best moments and military adventurists in our worst.”
Agreed. WWII was common defense. Iraq, hardly.
“then you’d have to likewise accept that significant social program cuts violate the preamble’s very next charge to “promote the general welfare,” wouldn’t you?”
No. It does not say, “provide” the general welfare, now does it? But I have no trouble basing cuts, program by program, on their efficiency, merit, and whether or not it can be reformed to be efficient and meritable.
“Finally, the Tea Party”
Where as I hate raising taxes, and respect that party for their call to more fiscal responsibility. I’m not a member, so I could care less.
Would the founders agree today, considering long range missiles, and speed at which one can be attacked? I don’t know.
Perhaps you could get away with just a reserve, but it may be wise to have most males at least trained. Places like Sweden require males to serve a year or so in the military, mainly for training…just incase.
I do understand the Founders fears. And you’ve made an argument for why the 2nd Amendment was enacted. So that the people would always have a defense against a standing army eh? Whether or own, or someone else’s.
Report comment to moderator
Ok. Sounds like we’re more or less agreed here: significant* cuts to military spending can and should be enacted.
* = I’m sure any five people in a room would define “significant” five different ways. I’m establishing an agreement in principle. I guess I’d say by “significant” I mean more than “oh, we don’t need this particular jet engine.” I mean something along the lines of an across the board percentage reduction.
Report comment to moderator
Well that’s typically what they do, don’t they? Here’s the percent we want cut, and they hand it to the department to decide what programs get the axe?
Cuts and savings need to occur across the whole federal government though, not just military.
I also, wouldn’t cut funding to those soldiers still at war. Bring them home. Don’t cut their feet out while their still there, ya know?
I think that’s why there’s alot of miscommunication. Conservatives don’t want to compromise our troops who are in harms way. That doesn’t mean we aren’t willing to bring them home, make military cuts that are certainly not necessary.
Part of the other government funding problem, is that, when they hand out money to an agency, the agency has to spend it then. So instead of taking just what they need. They take it all.
Friend of mine used to work for the Corp. His boss came in with a list one day, and just said, mark down anything you want. So he marks down a new laptop and a monitor. Takes it to his boss, and the boss goes…nah that’s not enough. Get 2 laptops, get a big screen tv…and just keeps check marking things till the assigned money is used up.
Pretty inefficient if you ask me.
Report comment to moderator
No, what they typically do is argue about keeping specific programs the SecDef has said he doesn’t need or want. They employ the familiar old rhetoric about “maintaining a strong national defense” to protect jobs in their districts building said unnecessary hardware.
“I support a 10% reduction in defense spending” would be the kiss of death in our political climate.
No disagreement here.
Neither do liberals or moderates.
A great many conservatives are against military cuts in general, and use the same old rhetoric on specific cuts of unwanted programs (like the F-22).
And it wasn’t that long ago that conservatives were unanimously against “bringing them home.” I remember the line, “it’s better they get attacked over there [Iraq] than we get attacked here on American soil.” Before 2008, criticizing President Bush or the war in Iraq was tantamount to treason. (A word used with some regularity on this very blog.) It was only after 2008 when it was clear that Bush had ruined the Republican brand for upcoming election that it became in vogue to suddenly “have always criticized” President Bush.
Report comment to moderator
I always liked the F-22. Quite awesome. Sounds like the latest issue is oxygen related though.
“I remember the line, “it’s better they get attacked over there [Iraq] than we get attacked here on American soil.””
In some cases, like WWII, it was better to not wait till the Nazi’s ended up on our shore.
It’s understandable Iraq would be viewed that way, or even having bases across the globe in different countries, that way.
Many Dems, voted for going, perhaps on that thought as well.
I certainly wonder if good CIA coupled with sniper/special teams missions couldn’t have accomplished the same thing. Maybe even faster than 10 years.
I certainly think that at some point you can easily overstep the common defense for common offense.
“It was only after 2008 when it was clear that Bush had ruined the Republican brand for upcoming election that it became in vogue to suddenly “have always criticized” President Bush.”
Perhaps, or perhaps they begin to realize how bad the spending policies were. The sad thing is, as that was his harshest criticism, America turned around and voted in another big spender…
Report comment to moderator
The problem with a 10% idea, is that you’d end up at 10 to 1 eventually right? Better than 3 to 1 though at least.
Yes, you’d eventually end up with a roughly 10-1 ratio. The 10% figure was arbitrary, by the way. The point is that establishing such a percentage, regardless of what it is, limits cost growth from demographic changes. If the age distribution of the population shifts then your program still only covers the top ~10%.
I’m sure any five people in a room would define “significant” five different ways.
I’ve thought a fair bit about military cuts. Here are three possibilities:
1. Cut down to the highest per GDP spending level of any of our peer nations.
2. Cut down to the lowest per GDP spending level in our recent history.
3. Cut down to the lowest real (i.e. inflation adjusted) spending level in our recent history.
All three of these would be calculated against non-Iraq/Afghanistan defense spending. And here’s what each would yield:
1. Figures for a few countries, per wiki:
US: 4.7%
UK: 2.7%
France: 2.5%
Germany: 1.4%
Japan: 1.0%
Australia: 1.9%
Canada: 1.5%
The wiki figures for the U.S. include overseas contingency operations, which account for about $150B worth of spending. Subtract those out and U.S. base spending is 3.67% GDP. So a reduction to UK levels would represent a cut of 26.5% to base defense spending.
2. The recent per GDP low came around 1999-2000 when defense spending dipped to about 3.0% GDP. This would suggest a more modest reduction of 18% on base, along with the $150B/year we’d save from getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan.
3. The recent low in real spending also came in the 1998-2001 time frame, where we spent just shy of $400B/year in 2009 dollars. Returning to this level would represent an approximate 26% cut to base spending.
Report comment to moderator
Forgot the </a>. Ooops.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle -
is that they view business and government as two social institutions that are intrinsically the same.
my vacationing brain was trying to say the exact opposite– you can’t treat gov’t and private bureacracies the same and nor can you expect the same mechansims of accountability.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle and Thorn do disagree
JJF — I suggested the Dept of Defense becasue its a department that usually grabs conservatives attention and would test their resolve to treat gov’t as a business. But your post office illustrates my point better. And interesint blurb on the consitution in 18
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I see. You first mentioned corporate bureaucracy as if to say that we should be just as upset about it as we are about government bureaucracy.
However, it is exactly the other way around from what I think you are saying.
Corporations are free to do as they please, and they will be rewarded or punished by their consumers–who are free to do business with them or not.
Government belongs to everyone and affects everyone. It should work effeciently for us and provide only the very few basic things that it does best.
And. . .to JJF. . .
I am pretty sure that Thorn and I agree. We have now both said the same things in different comments.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn and I agree.
But what if we didn’t? So what?
I doubt he cares, and I certainly don’t. I think we both are willing to stand up for whatever things we hold true, regardless of who agrees or disagrees. We’re not robots or cogs in a political machine.
Report comment to moderator
“Yes, you’d eventually end up with a roughly 10-1 ratio.”
Yeah, I think that’s too small to work though. You need to go back to 100 to 1. So perhaps 1% would be a good qualifier.
Report comment to moderator
Corporate and public bureacracies have the same problems but they don’t have the same enfrocement mechanisms or the same solutions. Innes and some others see it the exact opposite — they don’t have the same problems but have the smae solutions and should have the same enforcement mechanisms.
Report comment to moderator
“I suggested the Dept of Defense becasue its a department that usually grabs conservatives attention and would test their resolve to treat gov’t as a business.”
I think your confusing everything. You tripped over yourself back in #3 and #10. Maybe that’s why you think Kyle and I disagree. Which is really just a rabbit trail with no bearing.
Anyway, business and the government have different functions. They have different goals. Apple and Home Depot have different functions, different goals, but they are still subject to the same fiscal accountability. Right? So just because the government has different goals or function, doesn’t mean it can ignore fiscal accountability. It is still subject to similar mechanisms, namely it’s people and the law. People dictate the demand.
Now, when you talk about running it like a business, yes, conservatives want fiscal responsibility. We want them held accountable, and all the more so, because they take our money. There’s no choice there.
The reason, I would say, we are willing to make the occasional exception for defense, is because it is one of the prime responsibilities of the feds established by the Constitution. If we get attacked by China, I’d say that’s a reasonable time, to borrow if need be, to maintain our defense. You don’t go to war, half way. If you lose, there’s no ability to even promote the general welfare tomorrow or take care of the bum on the street.
But that is all the more reason, we should be out of debt, and use the better economic times to have been building up a defense fund. That way, when times are bad or at war, you have savings to withdraw from first.
Being in debt, and borrowing, make you a slave to the lender. Being wealthy, with no debt, allows you to handle down times with much greater ease.
Report comment to moderator
” they don’t have the same problems but have the smae solutions and should have the same enforcement mechanisms.”
I think we all agreed on the problems that they share.
Where the difference is, is that the government requires our money. Corporations can only ask for it by offering a product to sell.
People, still have the final say. They are still the solution and the mechanism, by which both are held accountable.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, I think that’s too small to work though. You need to go back to 100 to 1. So perhaps 1% would be a good qualifier.
That would raise the eligibility age for SS to around 82 and would reduce the number of participants by about 90%. I’d say we don’t need anything remotely that drastic.
While people are living longer than they were in the mid 1960s, that doesn’t necessarily mean their “working lifespan” has risen by an equal amount.
I’d be interested to know what % of the population was eligible for SS when it was originally implemented.
Report comment to moderator
Sure we do, we can’t afford it other wise. If it reduces 90%, we are at the bottom 10% I believe you suggested?
“While people are living longer than they were in the mid 1960s, that doesn’t necessarily mean their “working lifespan” has risen by an equal amount.”
Perhaps, because we’ve excused it, due to implications of SS being retirement, instead of for the very needy and can’t work.
Many of the 70+ year old men that come to Lions Club still work and take part at least in their businesses.
“I’d be interested to know what % of the population was eligible for SS when it was originally implemented.”
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
Their argument is that higher infant mortality rates lowered the life expectancy. If you made it to adult hood, your average age was about 65, which was the SS age.
People over the age of 65, in 1935 is estimated at 7.8 million.
Total population of Americans, 127 million.
About 1%
Report comment to moderator
Read the Wiki page on SS. Roosevelt practically threatened the judiciary with a new bill that would have added a ton of judges (his views of course) to the judiciary, in response to them hammering much of his New Deal initially.
I point that out, just cause I found it interesting.
Can you imagine Bush or Obama pulling that today? Sheesh.
Report comment to moderator
To compare though, I believe we now have 38 million over 65?
That’s about 13%, verses about 7% for kids under the age of 5…
One blame could be the 50 million dead from abortion that aren’t here to pay taxes. Another the lack of raising the age of receipt to 78 (avg age today). Basically we are at least very top heavy with the current set up.
I can’t find how many are over 78. At age 85, life expectancy though is another 6 years for both men and women, roughly.
Report comment to moderator
Sure we do, we can’t afford it other wise.
Actually we can afford it just fine. The estimate is that when the SS trust fund is exhausted it would be able to pay out at 75% its current rate using only current payroll taxes. So SS could have a “balanced budget” right now if only 25% fewer people qualified. We could accomplish that by raising the retirement age to 70.
Perhaps, because we’ve excused it, due to implications of SS being retirement, instead of for the very needy and can’t work.
That’s part of it. Then again, some people work jobs that are physically demanding and that they simply can’t continue doing in old age. And they have no other skills. They could attempt to transition to a less physically demanding job, but wide scale employment of the elderly might render those hard to come by.
It’s also worth considering that people of a given age, say 70, may not be all that much more “able” and “healthy” today than they were in the past. They’re “more able” by some degree, but what is the modern equivalent in terms of “ability” to a 65-year old from 1935? Is it 70? 75? 80? If it’s 70 and we set the retirement age at 75 then that version of SS would actually be less generous than the 1935 version despite covering a larger percentage of the population.
Total population of Americans, 127 million.
About 1%
Using the table of “65+ population by year” you posted along with this table of U.S. populations by year, here’s the 65+ percentage by decade:
1900: 2.2%
1910: 4.2%
1920: 4.6%
1930: 5.4%
1940: 6.8%
1950: 8.3%
1960: 9.5%
1970: 10.2%
1980: 11.5%
1990: 12.8%
2000: 12.4% (had to go elsewhere to get 2000 population)
So to return to 1935 levels we’d need to cover about half as many people as we do now. Given the current age distribution that would mean raising the retirement age to approximately 75.
Our per-capita real GDP has also risen substantially since 1935, though, and that argues for being somewhat more generous.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, I pulled the 127 mil from the same link you used. I pulled the 7.8 million number from I believe the SS website.
Oh I see what I did. About 6% is correct.
“Our per-capita real GDP has also risen substantially since 1935, though, and that argues for being somewhat more generous.”
Well, except that your also taxing for other things like Medicaid and Medicare now. So we have been pretty generous.
If you went with 75, you could lower the tax rate a bit. Or you could raise the payouts, considering 675 is the max this year.
According to wiki, they pushed the bill as a means of making the elderly retire earlier, to open jobs for youth. Not sure I’m a big fan of that. It’s not really creating more jobs.
“Actually we can afford it just fine.”
Are you factoring in the ever increasing number of elderly though as well? Does it account for cost of living increases? Then again if you raise the age you have more still paying in. So maybe that balances enough.
“It’s also worth considering that people of a given age, say 70, may not be all that much more “able” and “healthy” today than they were in the past.”
Maybe we could employ them as telemarketers and customer service reps? Hehe.
But, I believe there are several studies that discuss the health of those over 65. I’m pretty sure the quality of life and health exceeds those 70/80 years ago.
Most of the men I know over 70, are still very active. My grandparents all passed away in their early 80s. They were all very capable up until the last year or so of their lives. Your talking about men who grew up during the GD and served in WWII.
Report comment to moderator
One consideration though for not raising past 71, is that the average age for blacks is around 71 I believe. You’d cut off alot of support to them, and even unintentionally, there would be political spin flung around. Maybe lower though because of infant mortality rates being higher, so it may not be an issue, but just a thought.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!